WEBVTT Kind: captions; Language: en 00:00:08.001 --> 00:00:13.000 What does a Hollywood copyright fight from the 20th century have in common with 00:00:13.000 --> 00:00:16.000 royal publishing privileges and the French Revolution? 00:00:16.001 --> 00:00:18.000 More than you might imagine. 00:00:18.001 --> 00:00:19.000 Hi, everyone. 00:00:19.000 --> 00:00:21.001 I'm Chris Freeland, and I'm a librarian at the Internet Archive. 00:00:22.000 --> 00:00:26.000 In the Copyright Wars, historian Peter Baldwin takes us on a transatlantic 00:00:26.000 --> 00:00:30.000 journey across 300 years of copyright fights and skirmishes. 00:00:30.001 --> 00:00:31.000 No surprise. 00:00:31.001 --> 00:00:34.001 To fully understand the fights happening today, you have to look back at the 00:00:34.001 --> 00:00:37.001 legal and moral precedents set centuries before. 00:00:39.000 --> 00:00:43.000 Leading the conversation with Peter today will be Pamela Samuelson, the Richard 00:00:43.000 --> 00:00:47.000 M. Sherman Distinguished Professor of Law and Information at UC Berkeley. 00:00:48.000 --> 00:00:52.000 Pamela is a decorated scholar who has published extensively in the areas of 00:00:52.000 --> 00:00:55.000 copyright, software protection, and cyber law. 00:00:55.001 --> 00:00:59.001 Today's conversation is co-sponsored by Authors Alliance, and you'll be hearing 00:00:59.001 --> 00:01:02.001 from Executive Director Dave Hanson in just a few minutes. 00:01:03.001 --> 00:01:04.001 So here's something fun. 00:01:05.000 --> 00:01:07.001 The Copyright Wars was published eight years ago. 00:01:08.000 --> 00:01:11.001 Peter has designated that it be freely downloadable with a Creative Commons 00:01:11.001 --> 00:01:16.001 license at the Internet Archive, which Duncan is sharing out, will be sharing 00:01:16.001 --> 00:01:18.000 out in chat now. 00:01:18.001 --> 00:01:22.000 You can also purchase the book in print from the publisher, Princeton University 00:01:22.000 --> 00:01:24.000 Press, or of course your local bookstore. 00:01:25.000 --> 00:01:28.001 So I'd like to run through some basic logistics for today. 00:01:29.001 --> 00:01:32.001 We have automated captions available for our discussion. 00:01:32.001 --> 00:01:36.000 You can turn those on using the live transcript feature of Zoom. 00:01:37.000 --> 00:01:41.000 All registrants will receive an email tomorrow with today's recording. 00:01:41.000 --> 00:01:42.001 Yes, we are recording today's session. 00:01:42.001 --> 00:01:47.000 We will be uploading that to archive. org, preserving it there and making it 00:01:47.000 --> 00:01:50.001 available for everyone to view starting tomorrow. 00:01:50.001 --> 00:01:53.001 And of course, also the links that we're sharing out and the chat. 00:01:54.000 --> 00:01:57.001 So for those of you who are wanting to write down all the resources, don't worry. 00:01:58.001 --> 00:02:00.001 Everything that you see here presented in chat will be 00:02:00.001 --> 00:02:02.001 part of the recording package. 00:02:02.001 --> 00:02:04.001 So you can have those links afterwards. 00:02:05.000 --> 00:02:07.000 Now you can see that we do have the chat open. 00:02:07.001 --> 00:02:09.001 Please do be respectful in your communications today. 00:02:10.000 --> 00:02:17.000 Keep your comments on topic and do use the chat to submit questions for our 00:02:17.000 --> 00:02:20.000 panelists, which we'll take towards the end of our conversation. 00:02:20.000 --> 00:02:25.000 But for now, please keep doing what you're doing and use the chat to say hello 00:02:25.000 --> 00:02:28.001 and let us know who you are and where you're tuning in from today. 00:02:29.000 --> 00:02:31.001 I'll mention those of you. 00:02:31.001 --> 00:02:33.001 I see that there are a number of people who are 00:02:33.001 --> 00:02:35.000 frequent attendees at our book talks. 00:02:35.000 --> 00:02:37.000 You might notice that I'm in a different spot. 00:02:37.001 --> 00:02:41.001 I'm actually in Mishawaka, Indiana right now at our 00:02:41.001 --> 00:02:43.001 literacy partners, Better World Books. 00:02:44.000 --> 00:02:48.001 I came here to celebrate a holiday party for the workers who help the Internet 00:02:48.001 --> 00:02:52.001 Archive in making books available through 00:02:52.001 --> 00:02:54.001 our controlled digital lending environment. 00:02:54.001 --> 00:02:59.000 So glad to be here today and glad to be here part of this conversation. 00:02:59.001 --> 00:03:03.001 So as we get started, I would I would like to welcome Brewster Kale, the Internet 00:03:03.001 --> 00:03:07.000 Archive's founder and digital librarian to the screen for 00:03:07.000 --> 00:03:09.000 a little context setting. 00:03:09.001 --> 00:03:10.000 Brewster, are you there? 00:03:11.000 --> 00:03:12.000 Thank you very much, Chris. 00:03:12.001 --> 00:03:15.000 And thank you very much for everybody for coming today. 00:03:15.001 --> 00:03:21.000 I think of these book talks as my fantasy dinner party, right, where you get to 00:03:21.000 --> 00:03:26.000 go and have your favorite people have a conversation with you and around you 00:03:26.000 --> 00:03:28.000 that you've always wanted to happen. 00:03:28.000 --> 00:03:32.001 So I read Peter Baldwin's book and it blew my mind. 00:03:32.001 --> 00:03:35.001 It was I mean, I've read a lot about copyright stuff, but it's 00:03:35.001 --> 00:03:37.000 always been sort of the same, same, same. 00:03:37.000 --> 00:03:42.000 But this is really a different perspective of how did we get into this mess and 00:03:42.000 --> 00:03:47.000 where where are the conflicts over time that made it so that we're kind of having 00:03:47.000 --> 00:03:50.000 these these issues that were that we're having. 00:03:50.001 --> 00:03:53.000 So I'm very glad you're here. 00:03:53.001 --> 00:03:55.001 I actually like physical books myself. 00:03:56.000 --> 00:03:57.000 Highly recommend it. 00:03:58.000 --> 00:04:01.000 But it's great to be able to search it online. 00:04:01.000 --> 00:04:04.000 So thank you, Peter, for making this available. 00:04:04.001 --> 00:04:07.001 So thank you all for for coming today, Chris. 00:04:09.001 --> 00:04:10.001 Thanks, Brewster. Yeah, I'm the same way. 00:04:11.000 --> 00:04:12.000 You know, I love digital books. 00:04:12.001 --> 00:04:15.001 I love the the ease and the utility of digital books. 00:04:15.001 --> 00:04:19.001 And I love to read and print when whenever possible. 00:04:19.001 --> 00:04:23.001 So I also have a physical copy of the copyright wars in addition to being able to 00:04:23.001 --> 00:04:26.001 search and search through the text. 00:04:26.001 --> 00:04:30.000 Thanks to Peter making the book available at the Internet Archive. 00:04:30.000 --> 00:04:34.000 So it's now my pleasure to welcome Dave Hanson to the screen. 00:04:34.001 --> 00:04:38.001 Dave is the executive director of Authors Alliance and he's going to set the 00:04:38.001 --> 00:04:42.000 stage for today's discussion and also introduce our speakers. 00:04:42.000 --> 00:04:43.000 So over to you, Dave. 00:04:44.001 --> 00:04:48.000 Thanks, Chris. So and thank you all for joining. 00:04:48.000 --> 00:04:49.001 This is a really great turnout. 00:04:50.001 --> 00:04:55.000 This is our third author talk that we've done this fall with Internet Archive. 00:04:55.000 --> 00:04:59.000 And I think we're hitting pretty close to record participation. 00:05:00.000 --> 00:05:03.001 So so we're really excited to be able to do this series with Internet Archive. 00:05:04.000 --> 00:05:10.000 Authors Alliance is a nonprofit organization formed in 2014 with the mission of 00:05:10.000 --> 00:05:13.000 advancing the interests of authors who want to serve the public good 00:05:13.000 --> 00:05:14.001 by sharing their creations broadly. 00:05:15.001 --> 00:05:20.000 Our vision and voice are really unique among organizations participating in 00:05:20.000 --> 00:05:23.000 debates around copyright and free expression and fair use and other 00:05:23.000 --> 00:05:24.001 public policy issues. 00:05:24.001 --> 00:05:29.001 I joined Authors Alliance as executive director this past summer. 00:05:30.000 --> 00:05:34.000 For that, I formerly served as lead for copyright and information policy at Duke 00:05:34.000 --> 00:05:36.001 University and I was responsible for their library 00:05:36.001 --> 00:05:38.001 collections and research services. 00:05:39.001 --> 00:05:43.000 And a big reason why I joined is because Authors Alliance really is the only 00:05:43.000 --> 00:05:48.001 nonprofit membership based organization that really represents the public 00:05:48.001 --> 00:05:53.000 interest minded authors perspective on issues relating to information policy. 00:05:53.000 --> 00:06:00.000 And I think many of you on the call know that there there's a really alternative 00:06:00.000 --> 00:06:04.001 narrative out there and we provide an alternative to that to the to the 00:06:04.001 --> 00:06:09.000 protectionist positions of entertainment and big media lobbyists. 00:06:10.001 --> 00:06:17.001 And as we're going to hear about in a bit, you know, there is this ongoing war as 00:06:17.001 --> 00:06:22.001 described in the book and ongoing and debate with very different perspectives on 00:06:22.001 --> 00:06:26.001 what the law should look like and how it should benefit authors and creators 00:06:26.001 --> 00:06:28.000 and publishers and the public. 00:06:30.000 --> 00:06:34.000 So, so if Authors Alliance and our mission sounds like a description of your 00:06:34.000 --> 00:06:37.000 interest, we would really love to have you join us. 00:06:37.001 --> 00:06:40.001 Membership is free. It's a great way to help us represent your interests and 00:06:40.001 --> 00:06:45.001 amplify your voice. So you can click the link there or type in that 00:06:45.001 --> 00:06:47.001 link and love to hear from you. 00:06:48.000 --> 00:06:54.001 So now it is my pleasure to introduce Peter Baldwin and 00:06:54.001 --> 00:07:00.000 Pamela Samuelson. So first, Pam, Pamela Samuelson is the Richard M. Sherman 00:07:00.000 --> 00:07:02.001 Distinguished Professor of Law and Information at 00:07:02.001 --> 00:07:04.000 the University of California, Berkeley. 00:07:05.000 --> 00:07:10.000 She's a pioneer in digital copyright law, intellectual property, cyber law 00:07:10.000 --> 00:07:12.000 and information policy. 00:07:13.000 --> 00:07:17.000 Since 1996 she's held a joint appointment at the Berkeley Law School and 00:07:17.000 --> 00:07:18.001 UC Berkeley School of Information. 00:07:19.001 --> 00:07:23.001 And she is the director, a director of the internationally renowned Berkeley 00:07:23.001 --> 00:07:25.001 Center for Law and Technology. 00:07:27.000 --> 00:07:32.000 And among my favorite of her many, many achievements is that she is the co 00:07:32.000 --> 00:07:35.001 founder and chair of the board of Authors Alliance. 00:07:37.001 --> 00:07:43.000 And Pam will be in conversation today with Peter Baldwin. Peter Baldwin is a 00:07:43.000 --> 00:07:45.001 historian and professor at UCLA. 00:07:46.000 --> 00:07:49.000 His interests are in the historical development of the modern state. 00:07:49.001 --> 00:07:54.000 He's published many works on the comparative history of the welfare state, on 00:07:54.000 --> 00:07:59.000 social policy more broadly, on public health and on the history of copyright. 00:07:59.000 --> 00:08:04.000 He's the author of The Copyright Wars, Three Centuries of Transatlantic Battle, 00:08:04.000 --> 00:08:08.001 the book we're here to talk about today. His other recent works include Command 00:08:08.001 --> 00:08:12.001 and Persuade, Crime Law and State Across History by MIT Press. 00:08:13.001 --> 00:08:18.001 And a forthcoming book that I'm really excited about titled Athena Unbound, Why 00:08:18.001 --> 00:08:24.001 and How Academic Knowledge Should Be Free for All forthcoming from the MIT Press. 00:08:25.001 --> 00:08:30.000 And I'm also very proud to say Peter is a member of the Authors Alliance Advisory 00:08:30.000 --> 00:08:36.001 Board. And with that, I will hand it over to Peter to give a 00:08:37.001 --> 00:08:41.001 brief overview and intro and take it away. So thank you. 00:08:43.000 --> 00:08:44.001 Thank you very much. 00:08:46.000 --> 00:08:50.000 It's, you know, almost 10 years since the book came out. A lot has happened in 00:08:50.000 --> 00:08:54.001 the meantime, and I'm very lattered to be asked to do this and amazed at the 00:08:54.001 --> 00:09:00.001 interest and grateful to Pam for being willing to take on this conversation. Of 00:09:00.001 --> 00:09:05.000 course, Pam, I've been reading your stuff for a long time now. So you're a real 00:09:05.000 --> 00:09:09.000 player in this field and I'm an outside observer. But what I can bring is 00:09:09.000 --> 00:09:12.000 possibly a kind of historical perspective to it. 00:09:12.001 --> 00:09:18.000 If you look back at the history of copyright, copyright is today largely the 00:09:18.000 --> 00:09:19.001 same system everywhere in the world. 00:09:20.001 --> 00:09:25.000 Term lengths differ slightly among jurisdictions. You know, fair use is a bit 00:09:25.000 --> 00:09:29.001 less generous in some places than others. The first sale doctrine doesn't always 00:09:29.001 --> 00:09:33.000 allow the lending of the same content in all places. 00:09:33.000 --> 00:09:37.000 But this is fairly minor kinds of differences among the 00:09:37.000 --> 00:09:38.001 various systems that exist in the world. 00:09:39.000 --> 00:09:42.001 But this uniformity that we see now was not always true historically. When 00:09:42.001 --> 00:09:47.000 copyright first began in the early 18th century in England and then spread from 00:09:47.000 --> 00:09:51.000 there, copyright was approached very differently in different jurisdictions. 00:09:51.001 --> 00:09:56.001 The fundamental point of intellectual property and copyright is to accomplish two 00:09:56.001 --> 00:10:02.000 effectively contradictory goals. First of all, it is to offer creators some 00:10:02.000 --> 00:10:04.001 guarantee of profiting from their efforts. 00:10:05.001 --> 00:10:10.001 And to that end, creators are offered a temporary monopoly during 00:10:10.001 --> 00:10:12.000 which they can exploit their work. 00:10:13.000 --> 00:10:19.000 But the return on that promise, the return for society, is that once the period 00:10:19.000 --> 00:10:22.001 of temporary monopoly is over, of course, the work then joins the public domain 00:10:22.001 --> 00:10:25.000 and is available for anyone to use. 00:10:26.001 --> 00:10:31.001 Now, that means that copyright is effectively two faced and it can go in opposing 00:10:31.001 --> 00:10:35.001 directions. It can either be focused on the creators and their rewards on the one 00:10:35.001 --> 00:10:40.000 hand, or it can be focused on the public domain and what the audience expects in 00:10:40.000 --> 00:10:42.000 the way of having content delivered. 00:10:42.001 --> 00:10:45.001 And depending on how you formulate copyright, it can 00:10:45.001 --> 00:10:47.000 emphasize one aspect or the other. 00:10:48.001 --> 00:10:52.000 Now, throughout the 18th century, when copyright first began, these two sets of 00:10:52.000 --> 00:10:54.000 interests were largely held in balance. 00:10:55.000 --> 00:10:59.001 Terms were short. At first they were just 14 years and only a few kinds of works 00:10:59.001 --> 00:11:01.001 were protected, mainly writings. 00:11:02.001 --> 00:11:08.000 But having won this beachhead, creators and their disseminators strove for more. 00:11:08.001 --> 00:11:10.001 If novels and essays and plays were 00:11:10.001 --> 00:11:13.000 protected, you know, why not engravings of music? 00:11:13.001 --> 00:11:18.000 And if these works were protected for 14 years, why not longer? And if they were 00:11:18.000 --> 00:11:23.000 protected against being reprinted, why not against other uses like translation or 00:11:23.000 --> 00:11:27.001 Bridgeman or editing or otherwise being used for derivative works? 00:11:28.000 --> 00:11:33.000 All these other uses were eventually protected as well, which meant that any such 00:11:33.000 --> 00:11:36.000 use required permission and payment to the author. 00:11:37.001 --> 00:11:42.001 So protection lengthened in duration, to the point we've arrived at now, where it 00:11:42.001 --> 00:11:44.001 is basically a life of the author plus 70. 00:11:45.001 --> 00:11:50.000 And protection broadened in scope, to the extent that every conceivable creative 00:11:50.000 --> 00:11:54.000 act is protected the instant it occurs without having to undertake any 00:11:54.000 --> 00:11:56.000 formalities or registration, that sort of thing. 00:11:56.000 --> 00:12:01.001 So it's a huge expansion of rights for the authors in two directions. 00:12:02.001 --> 00:12:06.000 Now, in this process of expanding, different nations took different approaches, 00:12:06.000 --> 00:12:10.000 depending on whose claims they took most seriously, whether they were most 00:12:10.000 --> 00:12:14.001 interested in the author's claims or most interested in the audience's claims. 00:12:15.000 --> 00:12:19.001 And on the whole, looking back historically, it's fair to say, and this is what 00:12:19.001 --> 00:12:23.000 the bulk of the book deals with, that continental Europe favoured the interests 00:12:23.000 --> 00:12:26.001 of creators and gave them ever longer and broader powers. 00:12:27.000 --> 00:12:32.000 And this is what I in the book call the author's rights tradition. The author's 00:12:32.000 --> 00:12:36.001 rights tradition regards creators as having a natural law property right in 00:12:36.001 --> 00:12:42.001 works, which in theory should mean that they own them in perpetuity, but if not 00:12:42.001 --> 00:12:45.000 perpetually, at least they own them for a very long time. 00:12:46.000 --> 00:12:51.001 And in contrast to this, we then had the copyright tradition, more narrowly 00:12:51.001 --> 00:12:56.001 defined, a specific use of the term copyright here, which in the 18th and 19th 00:12:56.001 --> 00:13:01.000 centuries was adopted basically in the Anglo-Saxon nations in the UK as 00:13:01.000 --> 00:13:02.001 well, but above all in the US. 00:13:03.000 --> 00:13:07.001 And this copyright tradition emphasised the interests of the public in cheap, 00:13:07.001 --> 00:13:09.000 easily available enlightenment. 00:13:10.001 --> 00:13:14.001 It argued that authors had no more rights in their works than anyone has natural 00:13:14.001 --> 00:13:19.001 rights in tangible property, and it's only by virtue of the state policing 00:13:19.001 --> 00:13:22.000 property rights that they can be enforced at all. 00:13:23.000 --> 00:13:27.000 And in return for the state enforcing limited rights to exploit their property, 00:13:27.001 --> 00:13:32.000 authors therefore had to surrender it eventually to the public domain. 00:13:33.000 --> 00:13:37.001 Let me give you just two very brief examples, historical examples, of how the 00:13:37.001 --> 00:13:41.001 contrast between these traditions worked itself out in practice over the 00:13:41.001 --> 00:13:43.000 19th and 20th centuries. 00:13:44.001 --> 00:13:48.001 During the 19th century, the US refused to grant foreign authors 00:13:48.001 --> 00:13:50.000 copyright protection at all. 00:13:50.001 --> 00:13:53.001 That allowed US publishers to print bootleg editions of 00:13:53.001 --> 00:13:55.001 European writers at cheap prices. 00:13:56.000 --> 00:14:00.001 The US in the 19th century had the largest literate reading public in the world, 00:14:01.000 --> 00:14:03.001 and these publishers wanted to exploit. 00:14:04.000 --> 00:14:08.001 So American editions were massive and they were cheap, entire novels were 00:14:08.001 --> 00:14:13.000 published in periodicals, Charles Dickens was serialised on the back of railway 00:14:13.000 --> 00:14:18.001 trying timetables, and effectively education and enlightenment was spread as 00:14:18.001 --> 00:14:22.001 cheaply and as widely as possible, thanks to the European 00:14:22.001 --> 00:14:24.000 authors having no copyright. 00:14:25.001 --> 00:14:29.000 It was only toward the end of the 19th century that the US finally conceded 00:14:29.000 --> 00:14:35.000 foreign authors protection, and that happened when some US authors, people like 00:14:35.000 --> 00:14:38.000 Harriet Beecher Stowe and Mark Twain and Walt Whitman, when some of these 00:14:38.000 --> 00:14:42.000 American authors became popular in Europe, and American publishers discovered 00:14:42.000 --> 00:14:45.000 what it meant to be the victims of pirated editions. 00:14:45.000 --> 00:14:49.001 In other words, the change happened, the change to giving European authors 00:14:49.001 --> 00:14:54.001 copyright protection in the US, the change happened when the US became a cultural 00:14:54.001 --> 00:14:57.001 exporter and when its publishers shifted interest. 00:14:58.001 --> 00:15:04.000 The US then took the first of many steps towards the European view of authors 00:15:04.000 --> 00:15:07.001 rights that has since come to dominate intellectual property. 00:15:08.001 --> 00:15:11.001 That's the first example. The second example, and this is sort of from the other 00:15:11.001 --> 00:15:15.000 side of the spectrum, has to do with moral rights. 00:15:16.001 --> 00:15:20.001 Moral rights were emblematic of the European approach. Authors were given almost 00:15:20.001 --> 00:15:25.000 total control over their works, they could prevent them from appearing, except 00:15:25.000 --> 00:15:31.000 precisely as they wanted, and they could prevent works and any uses 00:15:31.000 --> 00:15:36.000 of their works. In the most extreme case, authors were given a withdrawal right, 00:15:36.001 --> 00:15:40.000 that is to say they could withdraw works from the market and forbid their use 00:15:40.000 --> 00:15:44.000 even after they had been published. In practice, this didn't work out very 00:15:44.000 --> 00:15:48.000 realistically, but in theory it was a right that they were granted. So just as 00:15:48.000 --> 00:15:54.001 one among many examples, in 1954, the French band Carmen Jones, which was the 00:15:54.001 --> 00:16:00.001 film by Otto Preminger of Bizet's opera, Carmen, and the reason they did so was 00:16:00.001 --> 00:16:06.000 that Bizet's heirs found that Carmen Jones, which was set among Black Americans, 00:16:06.000 --> 00:16:10.001 they found this to be a setting that was unworthy of the now dead master. 00:16:11.001 --> 00:16:15.000 Now, these sorts of contrasts between, on the one hand, the author's rights 00:16:15.000 --> 00:16:19.001 tradition and the copyright tradition, peaked during the middle decades of the 00:16:19.001 --> 00:16:24.001 20th century, and since that time, the two sides, the Anglo-Saxon nations and the 00:16:24.001 --> 00:16:30.000 European continental nations, have begun to approximate each other largely in 00:16:30.000 --> 00:16:34.000 tune with how the Anglo-Saxons have adopted the author's rights approach. 00:16:35.000 --> 00:16:41.001 This change was driven, above all, because the US content industries eventually 00:16:41.001 --> 00:16:45.001 became the world's biggest cultural exporters during the latter half of the 20th 00:16:45.001 --> 00:16:49.001 century, and they therefore developed an interest in strong protection for their 00:16:49.001 --> 00:16:53.001 property, much as the Europeans had had earlier in 00:16:53.001 --> 00:16:55.000 this period that we're looking at. 00:16:55.000 --> 00:17:00.000 The Google Books Project demonstrates that this transatlantic divergence still 00:17:00.000 --> 00:17:04.001 exists, even though it has been moderated. When Google presented its plans in 00:17:04.001 --> 00:17:10.000 2004, the European reaction to it was hostile, author's rights were being 00:17:10.000 --> 00:17:14.000 violated, this was the European position, the Anglophone cultural molloch was 00:17:14.000 --> 00:17:17.001 seen as once again trying to dominate the world. 00:17:18.001 --> 00:17:24.000 And we can also see a sort of resonance of this dispute in the discussions over 00:17:24.000 --> 00:17:30.000 the Safe Harbors provisions of how content that is posted on the web is treated. 00:17:30.001 --> 00:17:35.000 Safe Harbors give content disseminators some protection against claims of 00:17:35.000 --> 00:17:39.001 infringement for the works that they post, and the EU is now in the process of 00:17:39.001 --> 00:17:45.000 clamping down on these kinds of liability exceptions, while in the US the debate 00:17:45.000 --> 00:17:47.001 about this has only just begun. 00:17:48.001 --> 00:17:55.000 And that brings us to the question of open access, because if you look at 00:17:55.000 --> 00:18:00.000 the historical trajectory, you might expect there to be a broader divergence on 00:18:00.000 --> 00:18:05.000 open access between Europe and America than in fact there seems to be. 00:18:05.000 --> 00:18:10.000 In theoretical terms, it's true that the debate over open access was started 00:18:10.000 --> 00:18:15.000 earlier and in many ways conducted much more fervently in the US, but in 00:18:15.000 --> 00:18:21.000 practical terms the European seem to have beaten the US in the race. 00:18:21.000 --> 00:18:27.000 The EU has now, by now passed an orphan works law that allows orphan works to be 00:18:27.000 --> 00:18:30.000 digitized, for example, even though at the same time it demands 00:18:30.000 --> 00:18:31.001 payments for authors. 00:18:32.001 --> 00:18:38.000 And of course plan S which mandates gold open access for academic research is a 00:18:38.000 --> 00:18:42.001 European initiative that has gotten fairly widespread support in Europe, they're 00:18:42.001 --> 00:18:46.001 not uniformly and only in some extent in this country. 00:18:46.001 --> 00:18:51.001 So an interesting question, and I won't try to answer it now, I'd leave that for 00:18:51.001 --> 00:18:55.001 the discussion instead is given this historical trajectory with the two 00:18:55.001 --> 00:18:57.000 divergent approaches to copyright. 00:18:57.001 --> 00:19:02.000 Why is it that with open access, in fact, the Gulf seems to have narrowed 00:19:02.000 --> 00:19:05.001 somewhat and the two sides have reached some kind of rapprochement. 00:19:05.001 --> 00:19:12.000 So let me stop there for fear of monopolizing what time we have. 00:19:16.001 --> 00:19:21.001 Well, I want to start by saying thank you Peter for writing that book. 00:19:21.001 --> 00:19:28.000 I think, while I have been familiar with a good part of the history of the 00:19:28.000 --> 00:19:33.001 copyright wars in a. There were so many details about those. 00:19:35.000 --> 00:19:41.000 The ways in which copyright has been, from my standpoint misused that I didn't 00:19:41.000 --> 00:19:45.000 know about so you've given me a lot of examples to work 00:19:45.000 --> 00:19:47.000 with. And so thank you for that. 00:19:47.000 --> 00:19:54.000 But also, I, I think, as Brewster suggested, so many of us think that the 00:19:54.000 --> 00:19:58.000 copyright wars of the modern era are completely new. 00:19:59.000 --> 00:20:03.000 And I think you have done such a good job and helping us kind of understand that, 00:20:03.000 --> 00:20:07.001 hey, this has been going on for hundreds of years and you know it waxes 00:20:07.001 --> 00:20:09.000 and wanes back and forth. 00:20:09.000 --> 00:20:15.000 And we are in today, a little bit of a lull. But 00:20:15.000 --> 00:20:21.001 as somebody who is a very active participant in the copyright wars in the 00:20:21.001 --> 00:20:28.000 1990s. I can tell you that for those of you who are just in 00:20:28.000 --> 00:20:29.001 junior high school at that point. 00:20:29.001 --> 00:20:36.000 That was actually really really hard fought and the Clinton administration 00:20:36.000 --> 00:20:42.001 in 1994 1995 would have had copyright essentially. 00:20:43.001 --> 00:20:50.000 So broad that the internet would practically have to be shut down. So, every 00:20:50.000 --> 00:20:56.000 temporary and every permanent copy of works would be 00:20:56.000 --> 00:21:01.000 within the exclusive rights of the, of the rights holder. 00:21:01.001 --> 00:21:08.001 [...] ISPs would be strictly liable for every infringing copy of every 00:21:08.001 --> 00:21:13.000 infringing work that might be on their system. And there would be no need for 00:21:13.000 --> 00:21:19.000 fair use because because everything could be licensed and that was kind of the 00:21:19.000 --> 00:21:26.000 picture that not only the Clinton administration supported but also 00:21:26.000 --> 00:21:32.001 there was a draft international treaty the wipe a copyright treaty in 1996. 00:21:34.001 --> 00:21:40.000 The draft treaty would have made all of those exclusive rights. 00:21:40.000 --> 00:21:46.000 [...] made expansions into an international norm. Now, 00:21:47.000 --> 00:21:52.000 this is actually a good example that fighting back against the high 00:21:52.000 --> 00:21:57.000 protectionists can sometimes be successful and so the wipe a copyright treaty 00:21:57.000 --> 00:22:04.000 that finally got adopted in 1996 was actually a pretty good one. So they 00:22:04.000 --> 00:22:10.001 dropped the temporary copy as a norm. They dropped the ISP strict 00:22:10.001 --> 00:22:16.000 liability rule, and the wipe a copyright treaty. 00:22:16.000 --> 00:22:22.000 Not only said you can continue to use the exceptions that are in your national 00:22:22.000 --> 00:22:27.000 copyright law now but also new exceptions can be can be added so this was 00:22:27.000 --> 00:22:34.000 actually a place where some of the US representatives to the wipe oh 00:22:34.000 --> 00:22:40.001 treaty, some of the Nordic nations some Africa, and some from Asia, kind of got 00:22:40.001 --> 00:22:46.001 together and said, Hey, this high protectionist international treaty draft. 00:22:47.000 --> 00:22:51.000 We don't want any part of it. And so, this was actually a place where 00:22:51.000 --> 00:22:53.000 there was something of a victory now. 00:22:53.000 --> 00:22:59.000 I do, you know, I when when it comes to the digital millennium copyright act. 00:23:00.000 --> 00:23:06.001 We didn't win everything, but, but the ISP safe harbors has been enormously 00:23:06.001 --> 00:23:12.001 important to the growth of the internet economy and allowing the the hosting of 00:23:12.001 --> 00:23:14.001 content on sites. 00:23:15.001 --> 00:23:22.000 Everything from YouTube to WordPress, and we're very happy 00:23:22.000 --> 00:23:29.000 that the that the DMCA safe harbors has not only protected the interests 00:23:29.000 --> 00:23:35.000 of the platforms that that provide this space but also has enabled 00:23:35.000 --> 00:23:39.000 users to be able to make fair uses. 00:23:39.000 --> 00:23:45.001 And, you know, the platforms don't have to take anything down until and 00:23:45.001 --> 00:23:52.001 unless the copyright owner identifies what works have been infringed and then the 00:23:52.001 --> 00:23:59.001 platforms have a responsibility to investigate and take it down if the claim is 00:23:59.001 --> 00:24:06.001 is solid but it does seem to me that the DMCA wasn't far back. 00:24:07.000 --> 00:24:12.001 I hate the anti circumvention rules but but even they have been modified 00:24:12.001 --> 00:24:19.000 considerably because Congress put in a provision that allows 00:24:19.000 --> 00:24:25.000 the Copyright Office essentially to grant new exemptions to the anti 00:24:25.000 --> 00:24:31.001 circumvention laws, and so we both were enabling print disabled access to works. 00:24:32.001 --> 00:24:38.001 And most recently, author's alliance helped to get an exception for text and data 00:24:38.001 --> 00:24:45.000 mining so we can basically digital humanity scholars can now do text and data 00:24:45.000 --> 00:24:49.001 mining on DVD movies and on ebooks as, even 00:24:49.001 --> 00:24:51.000 though they're technically protected so. 00:24:51.000 --> 00:24:56.001 So, so there are there are some good things that have resulted from these wars, 00:24:57.000 --> 00:24:58.001 but unfortunately the wars are not over. 00:25:01.000 --> 00:25:06.001 Pamela, I wonder if what you would your description of the DMCA and the 00:25:06.001 --> 00:25:12.001 Millennium Copyright Act in the battles over that highlight something that from a 00:25:12.001 --> 00:25:16.001 sort of a longer historical perspective is one of the key aspects to copyright 00:25:16.001 --> 00:25:21.000 and you know the hopes for channeling reform in the right direction, and that is 00:25:21.000 --> 00:25:25.000 that there really aren't very many unified actors in this game or rather there 00:25:25.000 --> 00:25:29.001 are a lot of actors with different with different interests so even authors don't 00:25:29.001 --> 00:25:34.000 have a single voice because you have what one might call you know primary authors 00:25:34.000 --> 00:25:39.000 who create something above all by themselves, and who think that they own it and 00:25:39.000 --> 00:25:42.000 and they deserve rights for it. But then of course you have derivative authors 00:25:42.000 --> 00:25:48.000 who the British film directors playwrights, you know who use other authors works 00:25:48.000 --> 00:26:05.000 and want to have free access and want to have post modern reception theory and so 00:26:05.000 --> 00:26:09.001 forth and the audience becomes a creator in its own right and also has an 00:26:09.001 --> 00:26:15.001 interest in using the work so so even the authors category isn't isn't isn't 00:26:15.001 --> 00:26:19.000 unified and nor of course is that of the disseminators because you have the 00:26:19.000 --> 00:26:22.000 disseminators who publish to stick with books. 00:26:23.000 --> 00:26:26.000 The primary authors and they share more or less the same interests as the primary 00:26:26.000 --> 00:26:29.001 authors, but then you have the reprint publishers in the 19th century who were 00:26:29.001 --> 00:26:34.000 desperate just to you know put out as much stuff as they possibly can as cheaper 00:26:34.000 --> 00:26:38.001 prices you can, and during the battles over the digital millennium copyright act 00:26:38.001 --> 00:26:44.000 that split was effectively reenacted in the split between, on the one hand, 00:26:44.000 --> 00:26:49.000 Hollywood and the content owners and producers, and on the other hand, the 00:26:49.000 --> 00:26:53.001 internet interests in Silicon Valley, the ones who disseminated the information 00:26:53.001 --> 00:26:58.000 and didn't want it locked down effectively reflected the same split that you had 00:26:58.000 --> 00:27:02.001 in the 19th century between the primary publishers and the, and the reprint 00:27:02.001 --> 00:27:07.001 publishers and so this civil war that you effectively had between northern 00:27:07.001 --> 00:27:12.001 California and southern California was what, you know, allowed the, the, the 00:27:12.001 --> 00:27:16.001 Clinton, what prevented the Clinton administration. You remember how, how 00:27:16.001 --> 00:27:18.001 buddy buddy Clinton was with Hollywood. 00:27:18.001 --> 00:27:23.001 It prevented the Clinton administration from steamrolling that through without 00:27:23.001 --> 00:27:28.000 getting precisely things like safe harbors which is effectively the mechanism by 00:27:28.000 --> 00:27:30.001 which the content owners and the content disseminators 00:27:30.001 --> 00:27:32.001 have been reconciled to each other. 00:27:34.000 --> 00:27:39.001 I very much agree with you that the interest of authors are not uniform, nor are 00:27:39.001 --> 00:27:43.001 the interests of disseminators, but there are, as you 00:27:43.001 --> 00:27:45.001 say, some loud voices there. 00:27:45.001 --> 00:27:52.000 One of the reasons why I was motivated to to co found 00:27:52.000 --> 00:27:58.000 authors lines was because it really made me angry 00:27:58.000 --> 00:28:05.000 when the authors guild, which is made up of mostly people who want to 00:28:05.000 --> 00:28:11.000 commercialize their works and I think that organization has every right to exist, 00:28:11.001 --> 00:28:17.001 but they would basically say, hey we represent the interest of all authors. And 00:28:17.001 --> 00:28:22.001 so when they brought these lawsuits, first against Google for the Google Books 00:28:22.001 --> 00:28:29.001 scanning program, and then against how to trust the, the digital library 00:28:29.001 --> 00:28:36.000 of library copies that that libraries got back from Google 00:28:36.000 --> 00:28:40.001 copies of the works that Google had copied from their collections. 00:28:41.001 --> 00:28:45.000 They were basically saying, oh we represent the interest of all authors and I 00:28:45.000 --> 00:28:51.000 said no you don't. And so I filed a couple of briefs actually with 00:28:51.000 --> 00:28:52.001 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. 00:28:53.000 --> 00:29:00.000 One claiming that you shouldn't actually grant the class action status 00:29:00.000 --> 00:29:06.001 that that authors guild was seeking and second that authors Alliance 00:29:06.001 --> 00:29:12.001 has members who want their works to be found and Google Books allows people to 00:29:12.001 --> 00:29:17.001 find our works and therefore that should be part of the reason 00:29:17.001 --> 00:29:19.000 why this is fair use. 00:29:19.000 --> 00:29:25.000 And I'm pleased to say that although that was another very very very hotly fought 00:29:25.000 --> 00:29:31.001 debate that we were able to persuade the Second Circuit to vacate the class 00:29:31.001 --> 00:29:37.001 action status and also we helped persuade them that it was fair use 00:29:37.001 --> 00:29:44.001 for Google to scan this for text and data mining purposes and to enable 00:29:46.000 --> 00:29:52.001 search through the snippets that they serve up to, to people who are searching 00:29:52.001 --> 00:29:59.001 for something about Buffalo New York, or something else so it's been exciting 00:29:59.001 --> 00:30:04.001 to see that, you know, if you if you got it takes some action sometimes it really 00:30:04.001 --> 00:30:11.000 can make a make a big difference in the world and you know I think that 00:30:11.000 --> 00:30:17.001 Peter's book gives us a reason to think that, you know, this is an ongoing 00:30:17.001 --> 00:30:23.001 struggle but you know we're in a pretty good space at the moment, not a great one 00:30:23.001 --> 00:30:25.001 but a pretty good one. 00:30:25.001 --> 00:30:32.000 And, Peter I very much agree with you about the divergence between 00:30:32.000 --> 00:30:39.000 Europe and, and the US and I agree with you also that there's been some 00:30:39.000 --> 00:30:45.000 significant conversions and the US has moved more toward the European approach 00:30:45.000 --> 00:30:51.001 but fair use is actually an example of, of a concept that Europeans have yet to 00:30:51.001 --> 00:30:57.001 swallow at least some of the academics I know would like fair use to happen. 00:30:58.000 --> 00:31:05.000 But so far, not really happening, and the Europeans are clamping down now 00:31:05.000 --> 00:31:11.000 through new directives and new regulations to, 00:31:12.000 --> 00:31:18.000 you know, there was about a 20 year period in which the US and the EU, both 00:31:18.000 --> 00:31:20.000 adopted the safe harbor approach. 00:31:20.000 --> 00:31:25.001 And now they're basically the Europeans are saying, well that just allowed too 00:31:25.001 --> 00:31:29.001 much infringement to happen so we're not going to let that happen anymore. So, 00:31:29.001 --> 00:31:35.001 the, you know, the, the divergence has gotten more significant. 00:31:35.001 --> 00:31:41.001 And it's going to be interesting to see whether that leads to more 00:31:41.001 --> 00:31:47.001 legislative activity in the US so far not, but 00:31:47.001 --> 00:31:52.000 it's a, you know, maybe it's in the early stages of transition. 00:31:53.000 --> 00:31:58.000 Well, this is one of those issues where when once one is in favor of some 00:31:58.000 --> 00:32:01.000 political inertia, and nothing changing. In our 00:32:01.000 --> 00:32:03.000 case, but I mean in the case of the US. 00:32:03.001 --> 00:32:08.000 But so you raise an interesting question here, again, broadening this issue of 00:32:08.000 --> 00:32:13.000 the splits among creators and their divergent interest. We take this into the 00:32:13.000 --> 00:32:19.001 open access field which is, you know, a topic of more recent interest. 00:32:21.000 --> 00:32:26.001 This is sort of the real the big third rail issue that often doesn't come up 00:32:26.001 --> 00:32:32.001 because the moral argument for open access is really 00:32:32.001 --> 00:32:39.000 nothing other than for those authors who have been paid already in another 00:32:39.000 --> 00:32:43.001 form for your work, especially if you've been paid by taxpayers, which is the 00:32:43.001 --> 00:32:50.001 case for almost all scientific and certainly all academic researchers. There's 00:32:50.001 --> 00:32:54.001 no particular reason why you should be paid again for selling the product of what 00:32:54.001 --> 00:32:56.000 you've already been paid to do in the first place. 00:32:56.001 --> 00:33:01.001 So the division now becomes not between primary and derivative authors, it 00:33:01.001 --> 00:33:07.000 becomes between academic authors on the one hand, for whom open access is to me, 00:33:07.000 --> 00:33:12.000 it seems to me a moral imperative, and all the freelance or whatever we want to 00:33:12.000 --> 00:33:16.001 call them independent authors who actually have an ambition whether realized or 00:33:16.001 --> 00:33:20.001 not to live from their work, for whom, as far as I can see there is no good moral 00:33:20.001 --> 00:33:26.000 argument to be made that they should open up their work nor any economic logic as 00:33:26.000 --> 00:33:28.000 to how they should be able to do it. 00:33:28.000 --> 00:33:32.000 There are obviously of course public interest arguments, you know, networking 00:33:32.000 --> 00:33:36.000 arguments and usefulness to the audience and all that sort of thing I mean, 00:33:36.000 --> 00:33:40.001 obviously it'd be great if every novelist made their novels freely available. 00:33:41.001 --> 00:33:45.001 But I just don't see the moral argument there. Society might be better if that 00:33:45.001 --> 00:33:49.001 were the case but I don't see how one could go to people who expect to 00:33:49.001 --> 00:33:51.000 live from their work or want to try to live 00:33:51.000 --> 00:33:52.001 from their work and tell them they have to open it. 00:33:52.001 --> 00:33:57.001 So the new divide that's opened up is between academia on the one hand and 00:33:57.001 --> 00:34:03.001 independent cultural producers on the other. And the odd thing is, and I talk 00:34:03.001 --> 00:34:09.000 about this in my new book at some length, academia is not at all particularly in 00:34:09.000 --> 00:34:14.001 favor of open access or not nearly as in favor of it as it ought to be. 00:34:14.001 --> 00:34:18.000 And when I say academia, I mean in particular humanities and social sciences here 00:34:18.000 --> 00:34:22.001 because scientists, that's a whole different kettle of fish and science is, you 00:34:22.001 --> 00:34:28.000 know, well on the way to becoming fully open access, and in another 10 years max, 00:34:28.001 --> 00:34:31.001 it will be and there's no particular secret as to why that's the case. 00:34:31.001 --> 00:34:38.000 They have the funding to do so. It costs you know 2% of research costs to make 00:34:38.000 --> 00:34:43.001 articles and whatever books that scientists write open access it's just it's a 00:34:43.001 --> 00:34:47.000 rounding hour for them in terms of funding, but for the humanities and social 00:34:47.000 --> 00:34:49.000 sciences, of course, it's a major issue. 00:34:49.000 --> 00:34:55.000 And those scholars are not the ones who are leading the fight for open access as 00:34:55.000 --> 00:35:00.000 they ought to be. If anything, they're in the, in the area guard and, you know, 00:35:00.000 --> 00:35:03.001 bringing up the rear rumbling all the way as they're sort of dragged 00:35:03.001 --> 00:35:05.000 into the open access future. 00:35:05.001 --> 00:35:10.000 And it's a very interesting sort of dispute to see a group of people, my peers 00:35:10.000 --> 00:35:13.000 and colleagues who want to be on the right side of things but who aren't. 00:35:14.000 --> 00:35:21.000 I think that's exactly right. The, the humanities scholars 00:35:21.000 --> 00:35:28.000 and the social science scholars, I think, more humanities than 00:35:28.000 --> 00:35:34.001 social science, at least in my experience there are people in some of the social 00:35:34.001 --> 00:35:39.000 science fields who who embrace open access. 00:35:40.000 --> 00:35:45.001 One problem has been that the scholarly societies have supported 00:35:45.001 --> 00:35:52.000 themselves through exclusive rights that they get from authors who publish in 00:35:52.000 --> 00:35:54.001 their journals and since those journals. 00:35:54.001 --> 00:36:01.001 Very often are the high prestige journals, where I have to place my, my 00:36:01.001 --> 00:36:06.001 work in this particular journal in order to be able to be sure to get tenure. 00:36:07.001 --> 00:36:11.001 And the, you know, the scholarly society says you got to give me your copyright 00:36:11.001 --> 00:36:16.001 and they have to, you know, pay the salaries of the staff. 00:36:17.000 --> 00:36:21.000 Through that so that's, that's another one of the impediments so I don't think 00:36:21.000 --> 00:36:27.000 this, the, at least some of the social science scholars are fighting open access 00:36:27.000 --> 00:36:32.001 so much as they are like, we're trapped right we we we're trapped because of the, 00:36:33.001 --> 00:36:37.001 the need to be in these journals and as long as those journals are basically 00:36:37.001 --> 00:36:44.000 proprietary, we feel trapped. So it's been especially 00:36:44.000 --> 00:36:51.000 difficult for those people to, to find their way to open access 00:36:51.000 --> 00:36:57.000 but even so I think that there are now efforts in some of those fields anyway to, 00:36:57.001 --> 00:37:00.000 to open up a little bit more. 00:37:00.000 --> 00:37:04.001 Now, one thing that we haven't sort of mentioned but I think is worth mentioning 00:37:04.001 --> 00:37:11.001 is that open access has actually provided some competition in the copyright 00:37:11.001 --> 00:37:13.001 space that didn't exist before. 00:37:13.001 --> 00:37:19.001 And it's provided an opportunity for especially scholarly authors who 00:37:19.001 --> 00:37:21.001 published their monographs. 00:37:22.000 --> 00:37:28.000 They're now able to negotiate often with their publishers that, hey, we're going 00:37:28.000 --> 00:37:34.000 to have a five year window in which the, the book is basically available for 00:37:34.000 --> 00:37:35.001 for purchase only. 00:37:35.001 --> 00:37:42.001 But after that, because usually the, the, the, that five years 00:37:42.001 --> 00:37:46.001 three to five years is kind of the window in which, generally speaking, people 00:37:46.001 --> 00:37:51.000 are able to kind of essentially enjoy the fruits of the copyright, but after that 00:37:51.000 --> 00:37:55.001 we can make it available on an open access basis and so that's been something I 00:37:55.001 --> 00:38:00.000 think that, you know, it's been a leverage for for 00:38:00.000 --> 00:38:02.000 authors that they didn't used to have. 00:38:02.000 --> 00:38:06.001 And I think that's been a good thing. Now, one thing that I wanted to highlight 00:38:06.001 --> 00:38:11.001 here and this is a, you know, the latest skirmish in the copyright wars. 00:38:13.000 --> 00:38:18.000 And, and that's the, the fight over control digital lending. So, 00:38:19.000 --> 00:38:24.001 as many of you know the publishers of popular books. 00:38:25.001 --> 00:38:32.000 Want to make their books available digitally only through licensing 00:38:32.000 --> 00:38:39.000 and only in highly restricted formats. And so it seems to me 00:38:39.000 --> 00:38:45.000 that one of the things that the libraries have been able to do not be able to 00:38:45.000 --> 00:38:51.001 like purchase these ebooks and lend them the way that the that books have been 00:38:51.001 --> 00:38:58.000 lent traditionally by by libraries, but they've been experimenting with 00:38:58.000 --> 00:39:04.001 control digital lending and the Internet Archive was the was the sort of the 00:39:04.001 --> 00:39:10.000 instigator of this particular initiative, which has been picked up by many 00:39:10.000 --> 00:39:16.001 libraries and endorsed by a number of scholars as well as other people, 00:39:17.000 --> 00:39:23.001 and that allows if you own a physical copy of a book, then you can scan that book 00:39:23.001 --> 00:39:26.001 and lend the digital copy. 00:39:26.001 --> 00:39:32.001 And you have to do it, you know, you can't you can't digitally land 00:39:32.001 --> 00:39:39.000 more copies than you actually own and when somebody does a digital land, it only 00:39:39.000 --> 00:39:45.001 lasts for two weeks, and, and also with technical protected so that you 00:39:45.001 --> 00:39:48.000 can't make further copies of it. 00:39:48.000 --> 00:39:54.001 And this is kind of an effort to essentially accomplish lending by libraries the 00:39:54.001 --> 00:39:59.001 way that they've traditionally been able to do, but has set and several other 00:39:59.001 --> 00:40:06.000 publishers have sued the Internet Archive over this, and the case is now pending 00:40:06.000 --> 00:40:13.000 in a court in New York City. And this will be the big fair use 00:40:13.000 --> 00:40:16.000 battle of the of the decade. 00:40:18.000 --> 00:40:24.001 Yes, no, we all await the outcome on tenterhooks to see what because it will make 00:40:24.001 --> 00:40:28.001 a huge difference in terms of what the strategy will be going forward. 00:40:28.001 --> 00:40:33.000 If there's a loss here that would be quite significant. 00:40:34.000 --> 00:40:39.000 Even more outrageous when it, if we look at digital editions and libraries is the 00:40:39.000 --> 00:40:44.001 way in which publishers force libraries to pay more for the digital editions that 00:40:44.001 --> 00:40:49.001 they lend them, then the retail consumer and of course the libraries argument is 00:40:49.001 --> 00:40:53.000 well you know library owns physical copy of a book and after it's been let x 00:40:53.000 --> 00:40:57.001 number of times, they get stattered and they have to buy a new one. And so they 00:40:57.001 --> 00:41:02.001 build into these library licensing arrangements, you can lend it x number of 00:41:02.001 --> 00:41:07.000 times and then you have to pay again, or if you want a permanent copy that you 00:41:07.000 --> 00:41:10.001 don't have to renew all the time you have to pay, you know, often three and four 00:41:10.001 --> 00:41:12.001 times the retail price of it. 00:41:12.001 --> 00:41:16.001 But of course there's a lot of dispute as to how long does a physical book 00:41:16.001 --> 00:41:20.000 actually last in a library's hands and you know the publishers will tell you, you 00:41:20.000 --> 00:41:24.000 know, 12 lens and it's gone and the libraries will tell you you know 112 00:41:24.000 --> 00:41:25.001 lens and still there. 00:41:26.000 --> 00:41:29.001 And so obviously there's a lot of back and forth there, but it's almost as though 00:41:29.001 --> 00:41:33.001 the logic of the publishers is, you know, they want to be paid per land, not per 00:41:33.001 --> 00:41:37.000 book and so you know if the car manufacturers were to sell their cars 00:41:37.000 --> 00:41:39.000 according to the same logic. 00:41:39.000 --> 00:41:44.000 If you sell a car to a family with four children it's going to cost more than if 00:41:44.000 --> 00:41:48.000 you sell it to a bachelor which makes very little sense in the modern 00:41:48.000 --> 00:41:49.001 capitalist market. 00:41:51.000 --> 00:41:55.001 So there's, there's some other dispute there that has to be ironed out and we're 00:41:55.001 --> 00:42:02.000 far from having achieved any resolution. Well and unfortunately the Even though 00:42:02.000 --> 00:42:06.000 there have been some states that have passed laws that are kind of consumer 00:42:06.000 --> 00:42:12.001 protection laws that that that try to regulate the way in which digital 00:42:12.001 --> 00:42:19.001 ebooks are are licensed publishers go after that 00:42:19.001 --> 00:42:24.001 and say oh that's preempted by copyright law we have this exclusive right so I'm 00:42:24.001 --> 00:42:29.000 not there's Alliance is hoping to work with other organizations to try to figure 00:42:29.000 --> 00:42:34.000 out what consumer protection rules. We can 00:42:34.000 --> 00:42:41.000 promote that would not get preempted because it seems to me that 00:42:41.000 --> 00:42:44.001 the idea that, you know, libraries of the future. 00:42:46.000 --> 00:42:51.001 Are all digital right I mean for a lot of my students, if it in the in digital 00:42:51.001 --> 00:42:57.001 form it might as well not exist. And, you know, the future of libraries is really 00:42:57.001 --> 00:43:04.000 at stake in cases like the hashtag lawsuit against the Internet Archive and I 00:43:04.000 --> 00:43:09.001 think that, you know, Internet Archives lawyers are doing a very good job trying 00:43:09.001 --> 00:43:13.000 to help the court see the bigger picture here. 00:43:15.000 --> 00:43:20.001 But again, authors Alliance represents the interest of authors who basically say, 00:43:20.001 --> 00:43:26.000 hey, we like libraries libraries are really important to us and access to 00:43:26.000 --> 00:43:33.000 the cultural heritage of of humanity is something that libraries 00:43:33.000 --> 00:43:39.001 enable and we need that to continue to we need that to continue to exist. So, 00:43:39.001 --> 00:43:46.001 hopefully, the courts will will see that this isn't about theft 00:43:46.001 --> 00:43:53.000 this isn't about piracy. This is about access to cultural heritage, which, you 00:43:53.000 --> 00:43:57.000 know, the Constitution in the United States basically says this is supposed to be 00:43:57.000 --> 00:44:04.000 about promoting the progress of science and useful arts as to say about promoting 00:44:04.000 --> 00:44:09.000 access to knowledge, and the Supreme Court at least so far has basically said 00:44:09.000 --> 00:44:15.001 that the interest of the public in access to works is the primary 00:44:15.001 --> 00:44:22.001 goal of copyright, not the reward to authors and not to have 00:44:22.001 --> 00:44:24.001 exclusive control over everything. 00:44:27.000 --> 00:44:32.000 Well, that you raise the the elephant in the room question as far as libraries is 00:44:32.000 --> 00:44:34.000 concerned because once everything is digitized. 00:44:35.000 --> 00:44:38.001 You know, what what role exactly are they going to be playing. 00:44:39.001 --> 00:44:45.000 You think about when I was a teenager and desperately wanted access to more 00:44:45.000 --> 00:44:47.000 music, more, more than I could afford. 00:44:47.000 --> 00:44:54.000 I once lived for a while in a jurisdiction where it was considered okay for 00:44:54.000 --> 00:44:58.000 libraries to lend music, you could go and lend records that's not the case 00:44:58.000 --> 00:45:02.001 everywhere. They were of course, old and scratchy and a little bit better than 00:45:02.001 --> 00:45:15.000 nothing but not by much but that was the technology that was [...] build musical 00:45:15.000 --> 00:45:20.001 music and Spotify, effectively, whatever role libraries might have played in the 00:45:20.001 --> 00:45:24.001 summation of music has been completely sidestepped, and they played absolutely 00:45:24.001 --> 00:45:29.000 zero role, and the private sector has arranged that old very nicely, and 00:45:29.000 --> 00:45:31.001 apparently to the satisfaction of the average consumer. 00:45:32.001 --> 00:45:36.001 And the question is, is something similar going to happen to books, where we 00:45:36.001 --> 00:45:40.000 just, you know, sidestep the libraries altogether. 00:45:41.001 --> 00:45:47.000 Well, I think libraries have a big role to play in the future, at least 00:45:47.000 --> 00:45:48.001 I'm, I'm a big believer in that. 00:45:49.000 --> 00:45:55.000 It seems to me that there are, I'm not the only one who actually really likes 00:45:55.000 --> 00:46:01.001 physical books and likes to be in a place where you can actually look 00:46:01.001 --> 00:46:07.000 at the stacks and see what other books are next to this one. 00:46:07.000 --> 00:46:13.000 And that's a little harder to do in, in digital form you'll more or less have to 00:46:13.000 --> 00:46:18.000 know what you're looking for. And this kind of serendipity of the, of the actual 00:46:18.000 --> 00:46:24.000 physical library I think is a is is an important function that is played but also 00:46:24.000 --> 00:46:29.000 as a community center, right, at least when I was growing up. 00:46:29.001 --> 00:46:35.000 There would be readings right there would be sort of events where the libraries 00:46:35.000 --> 00:46:41.000 could be a community space. And I think that space is still 00:46:41.000 --> 00:46:47.001 quite valuable and again for authors, it was a way of enabling a wider 00:46:47.001 --> 00:46:51.001 readership for their work and that that function. 00:46:51.001 --> 00:46:58.000 I think would continue to exist but again, you know, a lot of what the publishers 00:46:58.000 --> 00:47:03.001 would like is, you have to subscribe to my silo. 00:47:03.001 --> 00:47:10.000 Right. These are my books, and you license not just the book that you want, but 00:47:10.000 --> 00:47:15.001 you license all of the books in my, in my stack. And then when you get kind of 00:47:17.001 --> 00:47:19.000 used to that. 00:47:20.000 --> 00:47:24.001 I'll take out the ones that are the most popular. So you're still paying for the 00:47:24.001 --> 00:47:29.001 silo, but I'm taking out the ones that are popular and you have to license those 00:47:29.001 --> 00:47:31.001 differently. 00:47:32.001 --> 00:47:38.001 And why they tried to do that this, this year by by taking out some of the books 00:47:38.001 --> 00:47:40.000 that were licensed to universities. 00:47:41.001 --> 00:47:46.001 And we're right before the start of the semester, you know, I was assigning this 00:47:46.001 --> 00:47:51.000 particular book but now my students have to buy it separately rather than having 00:47:51.000 --> 00:47:53.001 it within the license silo. 00:47:54.001 --> 00:48:01.000 And I'm proud of authors Alliance for having worked with others 00:48:01.000 --> 00:48:08.000 to try to say, hey, that's really unfair and to do it right before the start of 00:48:08.000 --> 00:48:12.000 the semester, when people have already planned their curriculum so 00:48:12.000 --> 00:48:14.000 wiley basically backed off. 00:48:14.000 --> 00:48:20.000 But that's an example of even when you license something, you know, they can 00:48:20.000 --> 00:48:25.000 basically change the terms and change what the product is just like 00:48:25.000 --> 00:48:26.001 that, and you have no recourse. 00:48:28.000 --> 00:48:32.001 And I realize I'm not going to make any friends by saying critical things about 00:48:32.001 --> 00:48:36.001 libraries in this crowd and I far be it for me I've spent most of my adult life 00:48:36.001 --> 00:48:40.001 in libraries and relied on them heavily I have nothing bad to say about 00:48:40.001 --> 00:48:44.000 libraries, I do think we have to think about what the future of libraries is. 00:48:45.000 --> 00:48:48.000 And, and there's some hard truths there that they are going to be very 00:48:48.000 --> 00:48:49.001 different than what they are staying in here. 00:48:52.001 --> 00:48:58.001 Here, Pam. Thank you so much. This has been a such a great conversation I wanted 00:48:58.001 --> 00:49:02.001 to break in. We have a lot of questions from folks in the chat I don't think 00:49:02.001 --> 00:49:05.000 we'll be able to get to all of them. 00:49:06.000 --> 00:49:08.001 But we have a few themes kind of running in here and I thought it would be 00:49:08.001 --> 00:49:10.000 good to touch on a few of these. 00:49:11.001 --> 00:49:14.000 So one of the questions that's come in. 00:49:15.000 --> 00:49:18.001 Several questions that have come in are around the treatment of artificial 00:49:18.001 --> 00:49:25.000 intelligence, and both the production of new works via 00:49:25.000 --> 00:49:31.001 artificial intelligence but also how the European and American approaches to 00:49:31.001 --> 00:49:36.000 treating copyrighted works effectively as the inputs as the data for you know 00:49:36.000 --> 00:49:41.000 training AI or performing text and data analysis, how that has differed. 00:49:42.000 --> 00:49:45.001 And where you see the future going with those two approaches are they 00:49:45.001 --> 00:49:47.001 diverging are they coming closer together. 00:49:49.000 --> 00:49:53.001 And I think one of the sub questions there is how does that relate to 00:49:53.001 --> 00:49:55.000 at least on the American side of things. 00:49:57.000 --> 00:50:01.001 The constitutional imperative that we're supposed to have a system that promotes 00:50:01.001 --> 00:50:03.000 the progress of science. 00:50:06.000 --> 00:50:09.000 Yikes. Okay, I'm going to take this to you Pamela because 00:50:09.000 --> 00:50:10.001 this is above my pay grade. 00:50:11.001 --> 00:50:17.000 Well, I actually wrote a paper in 1985 about 00:50:19.001 --> 00:50:23.000 allocating copyright in computer generated works. 00:50:23.001 --> 00:50:27.000 And so, this is kind of an old problem too. 00:50:28.000 --> 00:50:32.000 And there was actually quite a quite a lot written about it but at the time in 00:50:32.000 --> 00:50:36.000 the 1980s when there were all these people thinking about it. 00:50:36.000 --> 00:50:41.000 It was a toy problem. And what I mean by toy problem is that there was nothing 00:50:41.000 --> 00:50:44.000 commercially significant that was happening right, it was all like, 00:50:44.000 --> 00:50:46.000 Oh, this can happen in the future. 00:50:46.001 --> 00:50:53.000 What I'm going to do. And so, I wrote, I wrote this paper and fortunately it's 00:50:53.000 --> 00:50:57.001 gotten rediscovered by the dozens of people who've been writing about this 00:50:57.001 --> 00:50:59.000 subject lately. 00:50:59.000 --> 00:51:06.000 Now, the office of the kind of the Patent and Trademark Office and 00:51:06.000 --> 00:51:11.000 the Copyright Office in the United States have both come out saying, artificial 00:51:11.000 --> 00:51:17.001 intelligence works are not protected by copyright at all. 00:51:19.000 --> 00:51:26.000 And, and so, you know, it takes a human author, actually to, to be eligible. Now, 00:51:26.000 --> 00:51:30.000 one of the things that's going to be hard for the Copyright Office is that by 00:51:30.000 --> 00:51:36.001 just looking at, let's say a picture, you can't tell whether it was created by 00:51:36.001 --> 00:51:39.001 artificial intelligence or by human, you just can't tell. 00:51:40.001 --> 00:51:46.001 And so, you know, that's going to be a, you know, a difficulty for the for the 00:51:46.001 --> 00:51:53.000 Copyright Office. Also, you know, the closest cases that are out there, kind of, 00:51:53.001 --> 00:51:59.001 you know, there were actually several cases in which, you know, Jesus or some 00:51:59.001 --> 00:52:04.001 spirit was said to be the the author, and the Copyright Office said no, no, you 00:52:04.001 --> 00:52:10.000 can't, you know, you can't, you can't register the work as authored 00:52:10.000 --> 00:52:11.001 by Jesus, it done work for us. 00:52:11.001 --> 00:52:18.000 So, but the the course of actually found that, you know, by editing or by 00:52:18.000 --> 00:52:24.001 translating the sort of a human person was eligible and so based on those 00:52:24.001 --> 00:52:31.001 cases, I think that the tweaking that somebody might do with an 00:52:31.001 --> 00:52:38.001 artificial intelligence work of some kind, editing it, or, you know, rearranging 00:52:38.001 --> 00:52:45.000 it in some way, that will probably be enough human authorship to to allow 00:52:45.000 --> 00:52:50.000 copyright to exist and I know from some studies that have been done in the EU 00:52:50.000 --> 00:52:53.000 that that's kind of the approach that they're taking. 00:52:53.000 --> 00:53:00.000 Also, but I think the more challenging question really is what 00:53:00.000 --> 00:53:03.000 about ingesting copies of works. 00:53:03.000 --> 00:53:10.000 You know, if you kind of create a database of the works of 00:53:10.000 --> 00:53:16.001 Picasso, and then you generate some new work that looks like a Picasso, 00:53:17.000 --> 00:53:21.000 but wasn't created by by that, that entity. 00:53:22.000 --> 00:53:28.000 What do you do about that now that's a place where there's a very very stark 00:53:28.000 --> 00:53:30.000 divergence of opinion. 00:53:31.000 --> 00:53:36.000 But based on cases like the Google Books decision. 00:53:37.001 --> 00:53:44.000 There's a pretty good argument that that in that making copies of existing 00:53:44.000 --> 00:53:50.000 copyrighted works and using them as data and not exploiting their expression 00:53:50.000 --> 00:53:52.000 is actually fair use. 00:53:52.000 --> 00:53:58.000 And so, so far the case law in the United States really 00:53:58.000 --> 00:54:04.000 is favorable to that now there are certainly people who are who are fighting 00:54:04.000 --> 00:54:06.001 about whether that should be fair use or not. 00:54:06.001 --> 00:54:10.000 And I know that there's one. 00:54:11.001 --> 00:54:17.001 There's one software program that has been developed that 00:54:17.001 --> 00:54:24.000 ingest the the work of certain artists and then for some of the works that they 00:54:24.000 --> 00:54:26.001 that the artists created that were unfinished. 00:54:28.000 --> 00:54:34.001 The program basically based on what the creator did in the past. Here's what the 00:54:34.001 --> 00:54:39.001 final version of the work might look like, and some of the, some of the authors 00:54:39.001 --> 00:54:45.001 or the, the, the states of authors are claiming that that's copyright 00:54:45.001 --> 00:54:48.001 infringement to make the sort of the completed work. 00:54:48.001 --> 00:54:54.001 And I think that's a, you know, there are lots of open questions out there so 00:54:54.001 --> 00:54:59.001 thanks to the audience for raising another yet another place where the copyright 00:54:59.001 --> 00:55:01.000 wars breakout. 00:55:05.001 --> 00:55:10.001 So, Peter, you had talked a bit about kind of this emerging issue on emerging 00:55:10.001 --> 00:55:12.001 it's been around for a long time but how do 00:55:12.001 --> 00:55:14.000 we deal with this idea of open access. 00:55:15.001 --> 00:55:19.001 And there being, you know, a really strong contingent of authors who are 00:55:19.001 --> 00:55:22.001 interested in this and Pam you mentioned that the Google Books 00:55:22.001 --> 00:55:24.000 case I remember one. 00:55:25.000 --> 00:55:28.000 Remember these little quotes that stick out and in one of the briefs from the 00:55:28.000 --> 00:55:33.000 author's guild. They asserted that open access was in chemical to their 00:55:33.000 --> 00:55:39.000 interests, and they even italicized the chemical part to emphasize like how 00:55:39.000 --> 00:55:45.001 opposed they were to this idea that that their works would be distributed for 00:55:45.001 --> 00:55:50.000 free. And clearly there's there's distinctions within authors and Peter you 00:55:50.000 --> 00:55:55.001 started talking about that, the different types of authors but could you maybe 00:55:55.001 --> 00:56:01.000 talk a little bit more about how that's working out in Europe right now, and some 00:56:01.000 --> 00:56:05.000 of the, the missing pieces or why aren't we seeing some of 00:56:05.000 --> 00:56:06.001 that in the United States. 00:56:07.001 --> 00:56:12.001 Well, I don't know that we're there we're not there, the Europeans are have taken 00:56:12.001 --> 00:56:16.001 a few initiatives that we haven't followed up on, most of which has to do with 00:56:16.001 --> 00:56:20.001 the fact that they have more centralized governmental systems that allow them 00:56:20.001 --> 00:56:24.001 more leverage so for example, in England, the RAF or whatever they call it the 00:56:24.001 --> 00:56:28.000 research assessment exercise they keep on giving a new name every few years. 00:56:28.001 --> 00:56:32.001 So I can never keep up with it but because all the research funding comes through 00:56:32.001 --> 00:56:38.000 a central instance, they can actually force academics to make their works of an 00:56:38.000 --> 00:56:42.001 access or they shut off the spigot and you know it's been only articles up until 00:56:42.001 --> 00:56:45.001 now I think the next one, or at least they're certainly threatening to make the 00:56:45.001 --> 00:56:51.001 next one, also include books, and so, you know, British academics are really 00:56:51.001 --> 00:56:56.000 faced with the dilemma that there's no choice if they want to be have their work 00:56:56.000 --> 00:57:00.000 recognized for promotion and tenure and advancement and all, you know, those 00:57:00.000 --> 00:57:06.001 sorts of issues, it's got to be open access and so they, you know, they have 00:57:06.001 --> 00:57:12.001 them, you know, they have them in a bind as it were, and we, and the US simply 00:57:12.001 --> 00:57:16.000 can't do that in the same way with the any [... ] certain surface can they can 00:57:16.000 --> 00:57:30.001 make their stuff and you know that sort of thing. So, really, it's going to be 00:57:30.001 --> 00:57:35.000 harder for us to turn this to turn the tanker as the in Europe. 00:57:38.000 --> 00:57:38.001 Thank you. 00:57:40.000 --> 00:57:40.001 So one. 00:57:41.000 --> 00:57:43.001 One last question I think we have time for one more 00:57:43.001 --> 00:57:45.000 and this is going back a little in history. 00:57:45.000 --> 00:57:52.000 But a question came in about how and why did the US 00:57:52.000 --> 00:57:57.001 come to flipped from a essentially opt in to a opt out 00:57:57.001 --> 00:58:03.000 system, you know, following the 1976 Copyright 00:58:03.000 --> 00:58:05.000 Act, it seems like a very European approach. 00:58:05.000 --> 00:58:10.000 And at least from the perspective of libraries and archives and cultural heritage 00:58:10.000 --> 00:58:15.001 institutions been really devastating in terms of trying to sort out, you know 00:58:15.001 --> 00:58:19.000 what materials in the public domain and whether they're able to share that. 00:58:22.000 --> 00:58:27.000 Well, I think a good part of the explanation is that as us copyright industries 00:58:27.000 --> 00:58:29.001 got bigger and bigger and more global. 00:58:31.000 --> 00:58:36.001 The, the copyright industry groups were 00:58:36.001 --> 00:58:41.001 talking about why should we have 00:58:41.001 --> 00:58:48.001 much less protection in the United States than we have in Europe. Right. So our 00:58:48.001 --> 00:58:55.001 markets are so if if the copyright at the time was under the burn convention was 00:58:55.001 --> 00:58:57.000 life of the author plus 50 years. 00:58:58.000 --> 00:59:04.001 In the US, it was like 28 years renewable for another 28 years. And, you know, 00:59:04.001 --> 00:59:09.001 there's, there's a reason why, you know, if, if, if they're giving longer 00:59:09.001 --> 00:59:15.000 protection why shouldn't we, why shouldn't the US also do so I think that was one 00:59:15.000 --> 00:59:22.000 of the, that's one of the major explanations but the US didn't really move out 00:59:22.000 --> 00:59:28.000 of the kind of opt in, as opposed to opt out regime until 1989 00:59:28.000 --> 00:59:34.001 because until the passage of the, the 00:59:34.001 --> 00:59:41.000 implementation legislation for the burn convention, which the US joined in 1989. 00:59:41.000 --> 00:59:47.001 If you didn't put a copyright notice on published copies of a work, then 00:59:47.001 --> 00:59:52.001 everyone could assume that it was in the public domain and available for free 00:59:52.001 --> 00:59:58.001 copy. Now, I think that, you know, the United States had to do that if they 00:59:58.001 --> 01:00:00.000 wanted to join the burn convention. 01:00:01.001 --> 01:00:05.001 And there was a reason why they wanted to be part of the burn convention because 01:00:05.001 --> 01:00:08.000 that's that was where the international conversation 01:00:08.000 --> 01:00:10.000 about copyright was happening. 01:00:11.000 --> 01:00:16.000 And the US didn't have a seat at the table, because it wasn't a member of the 01:00:16.000 --> 01:00:21.001 burn union, but the burn convention required life of the author plus 50 years and 01:00:21.001 --> 01:00:27.001 required no formalities as a condition of copyright protection. 01:00:27.001 --> 01:00:34.000 And so the United States basically changed to the more European 01:00:34.000 --> 01:00:37.001 role in order to comply with the burn convention, 01:00:38.000 --> 01:00:39.001 and then we had a seat at the table. 01:00:46.000 --> 01:00:50.000 We are very close to time, Peter I don't know if you have any last parting words 01:00:50.000 --> 01:00:52.000 that you'd like to add. 01:00:55.000 --> 01:00:59.001 Only that I suspect the battle will continue. Whatever rapprochement there has 01:00:59.001 --> 01:01:05.000 been, as Pamela has pointed out, it's not as though there's a unanimity. And in 01:01:05.000 --> 01:01:07.001 this particular case it seems to me we're on the right side of history, 01:01:07.001 --> 01:01:09.001 and I hope we prevail. 01:01:12.000 --> 01:01:14.000 I hope so too. That's a great way to end. 01:01:15.001 --> 01:01:18.000 I will hand it back over to Chris. Are you ready, Chris? 01:01:19.000 --> 01:01:19.001 Go ahead. 01:01:20.001 --> 01:01:26.001 I am. Thanks. Thanks, Dave and thanks everyone for this conversation. So I can 01:01:26.001 --> 01:01:30.001 sense that our audience still has some questions, and given that there are 216 of 01:01:30.001 --> 01:01:34.000 you still past the top of the hour so here's what I'd like to do I didn't buy any 01:01:34.000 --> 01:01:39.001 of you who are able to stick around once we stop the recording for a little bit 01:01:39.001 --> 01:01:46.000 more of a chat session with Pamela and with Peter and with Dave. So one thing I 01:01:46.000 --> 01:01:49.000 would like to say is that please be sure to download the book 01:01:49.000 --> 01:01:50.001 or purchase it in print. 01:01:51.000 --> 01:01:56.000 The CopyWart Wars is a fascinating read. It is really dense. It was hard to make 01:01:56.000 --> 01:01:59.001 it through, I'll be honest, as a layperson or just a 01:01:59.001 --> 01:02:01.001 librarian. But here's the great thing. 01:02:01.001 --> 01:02:04.001 If you own the book, if you have the physical book, you can pass it on to someone 01:02:04.001 --> 01:02:07.000 that you think should read it afterwards. I mean, that's one of the things I like 01:02:07.000 --> 01:02:10.001 most about owning books is that you can give them to others. 01:02:12.000 --> 01:02:16.000 So as we wind down here today, I do want to tell you about a couple of other 01:02:16.000 --> 01:02:20.001 upcoming events that you're going to want to check out. So I know we're, as we're 01:02:20.001 --> 01:02:24.001 drawing down to the end of the end of the year, you might not be thinking about 01:02:24.001 --> 01:02:27.001 next year, but I do want to put some save the dates in front of you. 01:02:27.001 --> 01:02:32.001 So we might be asking the question, well, why is the internet so broken and what 01:02:32.001 --> 01:02:34.001 could ever possibly fix it? 01:02:35.000 --> 01:02:39.000 We'll be diving into that question on January 12 when we host an in-person event 01:02:39.000 --> 01:02:44.000 at our main library in San Francisco with Ben Tarnoff, the author of the new 01:02:44.000 --> 01:02:45.001 book Internet for the People. 01:02:45.001 --> 01:02:50.000 Ben will be in conversation with Leila Bailey, the Internet Archives Policy 01:02:50.000 --> 01:02:54.001 Council, and you certainly won't want to miss that. I'm going to paste a bunch of 01:02:54.001 --> 01:02:57.001 links here for these events into the chat. 01:02:58.000 --> 01:03:02.001 So and then after the book on the 12th, later in January, we have two ways of 01:03:02.001 --> 01:03:09.000 celebrating the public domain. We love the public domain. On January 19, we'll be 01:03:09.000 --> 01:03:13.000 celebrating the works, the published works from 1927 that are moving into the 01:03:13.000 --> 01:03:19.001 public domain this year, or in 2023, with a virtual party. And then on the next 01:03:19.001 --> 01:03:25.001 day, on January 20, come to our in-person again at 300 Funston in San Francisco, 01:03:26.001 --> 01:03:31.001 come to our film remix contest screening at the Internet Archive. 01:03:31.001 --> 01:03:36.000 And so as part of our celebration, we're sponsoring a film remix contest to 01:03:36.000 --> 01:03:40.001 create short films using resources from the Internet Archives collections from 01:03:40.001 --> 01:03:43.000 1927 again that are entering the public domain. 01:03:43.001 --> 01:03:47.000 So you can learn more about those through the 01:03:47.000 --> 01:03:48.001 links that we've shared out in chat. 01:03:50.000 --> 01:03:54.000 So to close down here today and before we kick off the after party, I'd like to 01:03:54.000 --> 01:03:57.000 give some some commitments and some thank yous. 01:03:57.000 --> 01:04:00.001 So, as we've mentioned several times throughout the throughout the conversation, 01:04:00.001 --> 01:04:05.000 the recording from today's session will be archived on archive.org later tonight 01:04:05.000 --> 01:04:09.001 and along with the links that we've shared the excellent chat commentary, and 01:04:09.001 --> 01:04:13.001 everyone who has registered will receive an email with a link to that recording 01:04:13.001 --> 01:04:18.001 and those resources. As for thank yous, a big thank you to our speakers to Peter, 01:04:19.000 --> 01:04:21.000 Pamela, for joining us today. 01:04:21.000 --> 01:04:26.001 Just a fascinating conversation. Thanks also to Dave Hansen and Authors Alliance 01:04:26.001 --> 01:04:30.001 for co hosting our session, and to you our audience for your time and your 01:04:30.001 --> 01:04:32.001 enthusiasm today. 01:04:33.000 --> 01:04:37.001 I'd like to just take a final note. This is our last virtual event for 2022. 01:04:37.001 --> 01:04:43.000 And through the 28 online events that we've produced this year we've brought more 01:04:43.000 --> 01:04:48.000 than 6000 people together virtually to hear about issues in the library 01:04:48.000 --> 01:04:49.001 and information policy world. 01:04:50.001 --> 01:04:55.000 Now, we could not do this and put on these talks without the hard work of the 01:04:55.000 --> 01:04:59.001 team working behind the scenes, who you haven't seen today or through those 28 01:04:59.001 --> 01:05:05.000 other sessions at every one of these conversations and so a very big thank you to 01:05:05.000 --> 01:05:11.000 Caitlin and Duncan, who make all of this just run so smoothly. Now, 01:05:11.001 --> 01:05:17.001 again, as we're as we close down here I do hope that you can join us at next year 01:05:17.001 --> 01:05:23.001 at one of our book talks or at public domain day, or another one of our events. 01:05:24.001 --> 01:05:29.000 Thank you all. Have a great day and safe and healthy holiday season.